Beneke v. Town of Santa Clara
Decision Date | 02 April 2009 |
Docket Number | 505303. |
Citation | 876 N.Y.S.2d 229,2009 NY Slip Op 02514,61 A.D.3d 1079 |
Parties | J. DAVID BENEKE, Individually and as Trustee of the J. DAVID BENEKE TRUST, Appellant-Respondent, v. TOWN OF SANTA CLARA et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Having been before this Court on four prior occasions, the underlying facts of this case are fully set out in those decisions (45 AD3d 1164 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 706 [2008]; 36 AD3d 1195 [2007], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 938 [2007]; 28 AD3d 998 [2006]; Matter of Beneke v Town of Santa Clara, 9 AD3d 820 [2004]). Succinctly stated, following plaintiff's unauthorized construction of a floating boathouse on the shoreline of Upper Saranac Lake in the Town of Santa Clara, Franklin County in 2001, and in the face of continuing legal efforts by defendant Town of Santa Clara to compel its removal as in violation of its local laws, plaintiff has persistently refused to remove the boathouse and engaged in protracted litigation against the Town. Upon our most recent review, we affirmed Supreme Court's February 2007 order compelling the removal of the boathouse by June 1, 2007 (45 AD3d 1164 [2007], supra). Not surprisingly, plaintiff failed to do so by the date prescribed by Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Town, defendant Town Board and certain town officials (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Town defendants) moved for an order compelling the boathouse's removal, holding plaintiff in contempt, awarding counsel fees and costs, and imposing fines for violation of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code pursuant to Executive Law § 382 (2). While that motion was pending, plaintiff removed the boathouse. Supreme Court, among other things, assessed a fine against plaintiff under Executive Law § 382 (2) in the amount of $200,000. The court also denied the Town defendants' application for a finding of contempt and counsel fees, stating that, "[a]lthough the facts are undisputed and a finding of contempt could be made summarily, there is no need to do so at this time in light of the penalties imposed." These cross appeals ensued.
Plaintiff contends that the Town was not authorized to seek imposition of a fine pursuant to Executive Law § 382 (2) in this civil action because the remedies set forth in that provision are strictly criminal in nature. As plaintiff failed to advance this argument before Supreme Court, we will not consider the issue on appeal (see State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Dayco Prods., Inc., 19 AD3d 923, 926 [2005]; Snyder v Newcomb Oil Co., 194 AD2d 53, 61 [1993]; Matter of Manhattan Indus. v Tully, 88 AD2d 737, 738 [1982]). Further, to the extent that plaintiff challenges the basis for Supreme Court's decision to fix the amount of fines at $200,000, the court appropriately set forth its reasoning and we find no basis upon which to disturb its determination in that regard.
Turning to the cross appeal by the Town defendants, we conclude that a finding of civil contempt against plaintiff was warranted. In order to make such a finding, "it must be established that there was a lawful court order in effect that clearly expressed an unequivocal mandate, that the person who allegedly violated the order had actual knowledge of its terms, and that his or her actions or failure to act defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hamilton v. Murphy
...or her actions or failure to act defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced a right of the moving party" ( Beneke v. Town of Santa Clara, 61 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 876 N.Y.S.2d 229 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Judiciary Law § 753[A][3]; McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2......
-
Town of Copake v. 13 Lackawanna Properties, LLC
...in the penalties imposed ( see Matter of People v. Hooks, 64 A.D.3d at 1076-1077, 883 N.Y.S.2d 378; Beneke v. Town of Santa Clara, 61 A.D.3d 1079, 1080-1081, 876 N.Y.S.2d 229 [2009]; Matter of Spinnenweber v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 160 A.D.2d 1138, 1140, 554 N.Y.S.2d 3......
-
Hush v. Taylor
...rights ( see Town of Copake v. 13 Lackawanna Props., LLC, 73 A.D.3d 1308, 1309, 900 N.Y.S.2d 508 [2010]; Beneke v. Town of Santa Clara, 61 A.D.3d 1079, 1080–1081, 876 N.Y.S.2d 229 [2009] ). Defendants contend that the requisite showing was not made, as they did not disobey a clear and unequ......
-
Hush v. Taylor
...rights (see Town of Copake v. 13 Lackawanna Props., LLC, 73 A.D.3d 1308, 1309, 900 N.Y.S.2d 508 [2010] ; Beneke v. Town of Santa Clara, 61 A.D.3d 1079, 1080–1081, 876 N.Y.S.2d 229 [2009] ). Defendants contend that the requisite showing was not made, as they did not disobey a clear and unequ......